Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #1
Evolutionary Algorithms
for Vehicle Routing Problems
Christian PRINS
Institute Charles Delaunay, FRE CNRS 2848
University of Technology of Troyes (UTT), France
christian.prins@utt.fr
Spring School on Vehicle Routing
Avignon, 2728/03/2008
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #2
Outline
1. Genetic and memetic algorithms
2. Application to the Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP)
3. MAPM and the Heterogeneous Fleet VRP (HFVRP)
4. The Periodic VRP (PVRP).
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #3
PART 1
Genetic and Memetic
Algorithms (GA and MA)
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #4
Classical GA – Incremental version
1: initialize population Pop
2: repeat
3: select two parents P1, P2 from Pop
4: crossover P1 ⊗ P2 → C1, C2
5: for each child C do
6: mutate C (small probability)
7: replace one solution B in Pop by C
8: endfor
9: until stopping criterion satisfied.
Not aggressive enough for combinatorial optimization,
Cannot compete with tabu search for instance.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #5
A simple example: the TSP 1/3
Travelling Salesman Problem
Data: n nodes, distance matrix D n×n
Goal: compute one cycle of minimum total length,
visiting each node once.
1. Chromosome and evaluation
One solution can be coded as a node permutation C.
Example: C = (5, 1, 4, 6, 3, 2)
The fitness (solution cost) is:
),(),()(
1
1
1
1
CCDCCDCF
n
n
i
ii
+=
∑
−
=
+
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #6
A simple example: the TSP 2/3
2. Initial population Pop of nc chromosomes
Generate nc random permutations, compute their costs.
3. Selection of two parents P1, P2 in Pop
Binary tournament: randomly draw two chromosomes,
keep the best as P1. Repeat to get P2.
4. Simple onepoint crossover
Parent 1: 1 3 9 27 4 5 8 6
Parent 2: 8 3 4 76 1 9 5 2
Child 1: 1 3 9 28 4 7 6 5
Child 2: 8 3 4 71 9 2 5 6
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #7
A simple example: the TSP 3/3
5. Simple mutation: swap two nodes
↓ ↓
Child : 1 3 9 2 7 4 1 8 6
Mutated: 1 7 9 2 3 4 1 8 6
6. Replacement rule
Child C replaces the worst chromosome in Pop.
7. Stopping criteria
max number of crossovers
max number of crossovers without improvement etc.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #8
Memetic Algorithm (Moscato, 1989)
Also called: Hybrid GA, Genetic Local Search.
Very effective. Requires a local search procedure LS.
1: initialize population Pop
2: improve each s in Pop: s ← LS(s)
3: repeat
4: select two parents P1, P2 from Pop
5: crossover P1 ⊗ P2 → C1, C2
6: for each child C do
7: improve: C ← LS(C)
8: mutate C (small probability)
9: replace one solution B in Pop by C
10: endfor
11: until stopping criterion satisfied
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #9
PART 2
The VRP case
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #10
The Vehicle Routing Problem
Data:
network with n + 1 nodes
node 0: depot with identical vehicles of capacity W
nodes 1 to n: clients with known demands qi
matrix D of minimal traveling times (shortest paths)
service costs and maximum trip duration (optional)
Goal: compute a set of trips of minimum total cost.
Notes:
no split delivery
the number of trips or vehicles is a decision variable
NPhard (TSP if total demand ≤ W)
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #11
The Vehicle Routing Problem
Problem 6 of Christofides, 50 clients.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #12
Entry points for VRP literature
T.A. Crainic, G. Laporte, Fleet management and logistics, Kluwer,
1998.
G. Laporte, M. Gendreau, J.Y. Potvin, F. Semet, Classical and
modern heuristics for the VRP, Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 7, 285300,
2000.
P. Toth, D. Vigo, The vehicle routing problem, SIAM, 2002.
J.F. Cordeau, M. Gendreau, A. Hertz, G. Laporte, J.S. Sormany, New
heuristics for the Vehicle Routing Problem. In: A. Langevin and D.
Riopel (Eds.), Logistics systems: design and optimization, pp. 279
298, Kluwer, 2005.
J.F. Cordeau, G. Laporte, M.W.P. Savelsbergh, D. Vigo. Vehicle
routing. In: C. Barnhart and G. Laporte (Eds.), Transportation,
Handbooks in ORMS, vol. 14, 367428, Elsevier, 2007.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #13
Starting point
In the 90's: efficient GAs for the TSP and the VRP with
time windows, but none for the VRP.
Gendreau et al. (1998): "Published GAs for the VRP
cannot compete with the best tabu search methods."
Chromosomes with trip delimiters:
1 5 4 2 7 3 6 8
Repair procedures in case of vehicle capacity violations.
Perturbing the genetic transmission of good patterns.
Keyidea: use chromosomes without trip delimiters.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #14
Chromosome and crossover
A chromosome is a permutation of the n clients.
Implicit shortest paths between adjacent clients.
No trip delimiters: giant tour for a vehicle with W=∞.
Two TSP crossovers that can be reused (we took OX):
LOX random cutpoints
↓ ↓
P1 : 1 3 26 4 59 7 8
P2 : 3 7 81 4 92 5 6
C : 3 7 8 6 4 5 1 9 2
OX random cutpoints
↓ ↓
P1 : 1 3 26 4 59 7 8
P2 : 3 7 81 4 92 5 6
C : 8 1 9 6 4 5 2 3 7
But how to get a VRP solution and its cost?
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #15
Evaluation: procedure SPLIT
a
(5)
b(4)
c(4)
d
(2)
e(7)
10
3025
15
30
40
35
25
20
Chromosome S = (a,b,c,d,e)
a
b
c
d
e
T1:55
T3:90
T2
60
Optimal splitting, cost 205
a:40
b:50
c:60
d
:80
e:70
ab
:55
bc
:85
bcd
:120
cd
:95
de
:90
0
4055
115
150
205
Auxiliary graph of possible trips for W=10 and shortest path in boldface
(Bellman's algorithm for directed acyclic graphs)
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #16
Comments 1/2
Practical advantages:
repair procedures with trip delimiters are avoided
classical crossovers for the TSP can be reused
No loss of information:
there exists one optimal chromosome (permutation)
the MA explores a smaller space (permutations)
SPLIT evaluates each permutation optimally
Small price to pay:
SPLIT runs in O(n2).
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #17
Comments 2/2
Flexibility of SPLIT:
Constraints on trips do not affect the shortest path
computation (e.g., maximum working time per driver).
Hierarchic optimization of total cost (F1) and number of
trips (F2): min M.F1+F2. The contrary is also possible.
Limited fleet of K vehicles. The general Bellman's
algorithm gives at iteration k the shortest paths with at
most k arcs. Use it and stop at iteration K.
Vehicle Fleet Mix Problem or several vehicle types with
different capacities and fixed costs: add to each arc
cost the cost of the cheapest compatible vehicle type.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #18
Population structure
Table Pop of nc distinct chromosomes:
to avoid premature convergence (clones)
better dispersal of solutions (better exploration)
A simple costspacing rule for a stronger dispersal:
∀ P1, P2 ∈ Pop : cost(P1) – cost(P2) ≥ ∆
a child violating this rule is rejected
acceptable rejection rate if nc small, e.g. nc = 30
Initial composition of Pop:
3 good solutions obtained by classical VRP heuristics
nc3 random permutations, evaluated by SPLIT
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #19
Local search 1/2
v
x
y
Depot
u
v
x
y
u
a
b
a
b
OrOPT (move 1 or 2 nodes)
2OPT (change 2 edges)
u
v
u
v
x
yx
y
Node exchanges are also considered.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #20
Local search 2/2
u
v
x
y
T1T2
u
v
xy
u
v
xy
T1T2
u
v
x
y
Moves are also applied
to 2 trips, e.g. 2OPT.
All these moves can
be scanned in O(n2).
First improvement
instead of best
improvement.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #21
MA overview for the VRP
1: build Pop to get nc costspaced chromosomes
2: for phase := 1 to phase_max do
3: sort Pop in ascending cost order (best soln Pop(1))
4: repeat
5: select P1, P2 by binary tournament
6: apply crossover OX to get one child C
7: if random < PLS then C ← LS(C) endif
8: select B at random in the worst half of Pop
9: if Pop\{B} ∪ C is costspaced then B ← C endif
10: until stopping criterion
11: partial_renewal (Pop)
12: endfor
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #22
MA vs. classical VRP metaheuristics
14 Christofides instances, n=50199
Results obtained with various settings of parameters
Kind Authors Year Dev. to best solns
TS Taillard 1993 0.05 %
MA Prins 2001 0.08 %
TS Gendreau et al. 1994 0.20 %
TS Taillard 1992 0.39 %
TS Rego and Roucairol 1996 0.55 %
TS Gendreau et al. 1991 0.68 %
TS Rego and Roucairol 1996 0.77 %
TS Gendreau et al. 1994 0.86 %
TS Osman 1993 1.01 %
SA Osman 1993 2.09 %
Source: Crainic & Laporte, Fleet Management and Logistics, Kluwer, 1998.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #23
Current best VRP metaheuristics 1/2
14 Christofides instances, n=50199
Results obtained with one setting of parameters
Times in minutes scaled for a 1 GHz PC
Kind Authors Year Gap% Time
GLS+ES Mester, Bräysy 2004 0.03 7.72
GLS+ES fast Mester, Bräysy 2004 0.07 0.27
Adaptive memory Tarantilis, Kiranoudis 2002 0.23 1.04
MA Prins 2001 0.24 2.60
RTR Li et al. 2004 0.41 ?
MA Berger, Barkaoui 2004 0.49 4.25
TS Cordeau et al. 2001 0.56 24.62
Granular TS Toth, Vigo 2003 0.64 0.38
Source: Cordeau et al., New heuristics for the VRP, 2005.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #24
Current best VRP metaheuristics 2/2
20 largescale instances from Golden et al., n=200483
Results obtained with one setting of parameters
Times in minutes scaled for a 1 GHz PC
Kind Authors Year Gap% Time
GLS+ES Mester, Bräysy 2004 0.00 72.9
GLS+ES fast Mester, Bräysy 2004 0.93 0.6
Adaptive memory Tarantilis, Kiranoudis 2002 0.74 8.4
MA Prins 2001 0.91 33.4
RTR Li et al. 2004 1.05 ?
TS Cordeau et al. 2001 1.45 56.1
Granular TS Toth, Vigo 2003 2.87 1.8
Source: Cordeau et al., New heuristics for the VRP, Kluwer, 2005.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #25
Reference
C. Prins, A simple and effective evolutionary algorithm for the
Vehicle Routing Problem, Computers & Operations Research,
31(12), pp. 19852002, 2004. Presented first at MIC 2001.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #26
PART 3
Memetic Algorithms with
Population Management
The HVRP case
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #27
MAPM (Sörensen, 2003)
General principles
small population of highquality solutions
local improvement
diversity controlled via population management
Population management
distance d(x,y) between solutions, in solution space
distance to a population P: dP(s) = min {d(s,x): x∈P}
a new solution s is added to P if dP(s) ≥ ∆
the diversity parameter ∆ can be dynamically adjusted
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #28
MAPM model for routing problems
1: initialize population P and diversity parameter ∆
2: repeat
3: select parents P1, P2 from P
4: apply crossover OX to get one child C
5: if random < PLS
then C ← LS(C) endif
6: select B at random in the worst half of P
7: while dP(C) < ∆ do or
 if dP(C) ≥ ∆ then
8: mutate C  replace B by C
9: end while  end if
10: replace a solution B by C  //else discard C
11: update diversity parameter ∆
12: until stopping criterion satisfied
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #29
Some advantages of MAPM
Bridge the gap between MA and Scatter Search (SS).
Can be viewed as a "light" form of SS.
Active control of diversity thru population management.
MAlike structure: easier to implement than SS.
Easy upgrade of an existing MA.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #30
The HVRP
VRP with heterogeneous fleet (HFVRP or HVRP):
t vehicle types
type k : availability a(k), capacity Q(k)
fixed cost f(k), cost per unit distance v(k)
trip T of length L with vehicle k: cost(T) = f(k)+v(k).L
Goal: minimize total cost of trips,
each trip being assigned to one compatible vehicle.
VRP: case t = 1
Vehicle Fleet Mix Problem (VFMP): all a(k) = ∞ (or = n)
True HVRP: limited a(k).
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #31
SPLIT for the VRP and VFMP
Consider one chromosome and a possible trip T of length L.
Classical VRP, splitting graph with O(m) arcs (one per trip):
cost(T) = L
splitting in O(m) using Bellman algorithm.
a:40
b:50
c:60
d:80
e:70
ab
:55
bc
:85
bcd
:120
cd
:95
de
:90
0
4055
115
150
205
VFMP:
cost(T) = f(k)+v(k).L, k cheapest compatible vehicle type.
The shortest path computation does not change, O(m).
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #32
Example for the VFMP
Fleet with t = 3 vehicle types:
i
j
Trip load : 25
Trip length: 300
Type k Qk F
k V
k Assignment of k to (i,j)
1 20 100 10 Capacity violated
2 40 200 20 Cij=200+20x300=6200
3 50 250 30 Cij=250+30x300=9250
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #33
SPLIT for the HVRP 1/3
True HVRP (limited a(k)):
the cost of a trip depends on the vehicle assigned to it
this can be modelled by parallel arcs
Arc cost 6200 (vehicle type 2)
i
j
Arc cost 9250 (vehicle type 3)
feasible path: no more than a(k) vehicles of type k
shortest path problem with resource constraints !
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #34
SPLIT for the HVRP 2/3
The splitting problem can be infeasible:
t=2, a1=1 et Q1=10, a2=1 et Q2=14
S : 1 2 3 4 → feasible
q : 7 2 9 4
S' : 1 4 2 3 → infeasible
q : 7 4 2 9
Resourceconstrained shortest path problem!
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #35
SPLIT for the HVRP 3/3
Dynamic programming method
Let F ( j,x1,x2,…,xt) be:
the cost of an optimal splitting of (S1, S2, …, Sj)
with 0 ≤ xk ≤ ak vehicles of each type k.
Our goal is to compute F (n,a1,a2,…,at) and we have:
F(0,x1,x2,…,xt)=0, for each type k and all 0 ≤ xk ≤ ak
∀ j > 0, F(j,x1,x2,…,xt)=
min {F(i,x1,x2,…,xk1,…,xt): i ≤ j, load(i,j) ≤ Qk, xk>0)
Can be implemented in O(m.t.n
t) if t ≤ n.
Pseudopolynomial. Polynomial for a fixed t.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #36
Distance measures 1/3
X,Y two chromosomes with n tasks (required nodes).
No trip delimiters: distances for permutations.
Hamming distance:
DH(X,Y) = number of indices with ≠ values in X, Y.
∑
=
≠=
ni
H
iYiXYXD
,1
))()((),(
X = (1,2,3,4,5) DH
(X,Y) = 3
Y = (1,3,4,2,5)
Values in [0,n]. Can be computed in O(n).
Drawback: DH(X,Y) = n if Y is a circular shift of X.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #37
Distance measures 2/3
"Broken pairs" distance:
DR(X,Y)=nb of pairs {X(i),X(i+1)} not adjacent in Y.
X = (1,2,3,4,5) (2,3) and (4,5) are broken
Y = (3,4,1,2,5) DR(X,Y) = 2
Values in [0,n1]. Can be computed in O(n).
This distance is the best for vehicle routing problems …
if our encoding without trip delimiters is used!
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #38
Distances measures 3/3
Levenshtein (or edit) distance DL:
X and Y viewed as strings of symbols
DL(X,Y) minimum nb of operations to change X into Y.
Allowed operations; delete, insert, replace one symbol.
Values in [0,n].
Can be computed in O(n2) using a DP method.
Example. DL("fruits","baits") = 3:
fruits → bruits → buits → baits
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #39
Diversity control policy
In MAPM, child C is accepted in P if dP(C) ≥ ∆. Policies:
∆=constant, e.g. ∆ = 1 ⇔ no clones
growth from 1 to a maximum value
growth with reset when bestknown solution improved.
Crossovers
min value: 1
max value:
0.7 x dmax
New best soln found
Stop
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #40
Results for VFMP 1/2
12 instances from Golden, n=20100
Fixed costs but no variable costs
Bestknown solutions (BKS) as listed in Choi and Tcha (2007)
Best of 5 runs, times scaled for a 2.4 GHz PC
Authors Year Method Dev BKS Time (s)
Choi, Tcha 2007 CG+BB 0.004% 150
Prins To appear MAPM 0.04% 27
Taillard 1999 HCG 0.14% 32
Prins To appear MA 0.15% 12
Wassan, Osman 2002 TS 0.23% 18
Gendreau et al. 1999 TS 0.24% 18
Note: the MAPM improves one bestknown solution.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #41
Results for VFMP 2/2
12 instances from Golden, n=20100
Fixed costs and variable costs
Bestknown solutions (BKS) as listed in Choi and Tcha (2007)
Best of 5 runs, times scaled for a 2.4 GHz PC
Authors Year Method Dev BKS Time(s)
Prins To appear MAPM 0.06% 14
Choi,Tcha 2007 CG+BB 0.00% 93
Prins To appear MA 0.01% 11
Note: the MAPM improves 2 bestknown solutions.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #42
Results for the true HVRP
8 larger Golden instances, n=50100
Bestknown solutions (BKS) as listed in Tarantilis
One single run, times scaled for a 2.4 GHz PC
Authors Year Method Dev BKS Time(s)
Li,Golden,Wasil 2007 RTR 0.49% 286
Prins To appear MAPM 0.45% 75
Prins To appear MA 0.04% 50
Tarantilis et al. 2004 TA 0.09% 86
Taillard 1999 HCG 0.40% 52
The MA improves 4 bestknown solutions.
The RTR and MAPM improve 6 bestknown solutions.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #43
References
N. Labadi, P. Lacomme, C. Prins, A memetic algorithm for the
heterogeneous fleet VRP, Proceedings of Odysseus 2006, E.
Benavent et al. (Eds.), pp. 209213, Univ. of Valencia, 2006.
C. Prins, Two memetic algorithms for vehicle routing problems
with heterogeneous fleets, Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, forthcoming.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #44
PART 4
Periodic problems
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #45
The Periodic VRP  Basic version
PVRP data:
undirected graph G, depot + n required nodes (tasks)
planning horizon H of np periods or "days"
for each task i, frequency f(i) (number of visits in H)
demands q(i), service times s(i), travel times C(i,j).
Goal (hierarchical biobjective function):
select f(i) days per task i and solve one VRP per day
main objective: minimize fleet size
secondary objective: total duration of trips over H
Applications:
industrial waste collection, drinks dispensers,
delivery of propane to glass houses etc.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #46
Varying demands & service times
Published models: q(i), s(i) do not depend on period p.
But demands often result from daily "productions"
constant production : prod(i,p) = prod(i)
global variation α(p) : prod(i,p) =
α(p)⋅prod(i)
general case : distinct prod(i,p), p=1…np
If last visit in period q, the amount in period p is:
∑
+=
=
p
qk
kiprodpiq
1
),(),(
Service time: s(i,p) linear in q(i,p) + fixed cost.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #47
Spacing constraints
Two types (convertible into each other):
min & max time lag between two visits
set of allowed day combinations comb(i)
We use day combinations:
not too many for small horizons (1 week → 1 month)
spacing is implicitly satisfied
demands can be computed in advance for each day
Example:
cyclic horizon, np=7, no work on weekend, f(i)=1,2,5
8 combinations: {1,2,3,4,5},{1,4},{2,5},{1}…{5}
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #48
Chromosomes
Each task i has a set of day combinations.
Chromosome S:
np sublists S(1)…S(np): one VRP chromosome per day
node i occurs f(i) times, using one day combination
node i occurs at most once in each sublist S(k)
Chromosome length:
∑
=
=
ni
ifL
,1
)(
No trip delimiter: S kind of priority order for one vehicle
doing the tasks day by day and one by one in each day.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #49
Extended LOX crossover (ELOX)
i f(i) comb(i) i f(i) comb(i)
1 3 {1,3,4},{2,3,4} 5 1 {1},{2}
2 2 {1,3},{2,4} 6 3 {2,3,4},{1,2,4},{1,2,3}
3 1 {1},{4} 7 2 {2,4},{1,3}
4 1 {1} 8 1 {2},{4}
Mon Tue Wed Thu
P1 1 2 3 4
5
6
7
1 2 6 1 6 7 8
Mon Tue Wed Thu
P2 7 6 5 4 8 6 2 1 7 1 3 6 1 2
Mon Tue Wed Thu
C1 6 4
5
6
7 8 2 1
1 6 7 3 1 2
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #50
Chromosome evaluation
Hierarchical biobjective function Z=M.nvu+tcost, where:
nvu, number of vehicles used (fleet size required)
tcost, total duration of trips over horizon H
Optimal chromosome evaluation:
1. SPLIT in each day p, with arc costs = 1 in auxiliary
graph → minimum nb of vehicles per day nv(p).
2. Minimum fleet size nvu = maximum of the nv(p).
3. SPLIT on each day p using actual trip costs and at
most nvu arcs → minimum cost per day cost(p)
4. Return Z = M.nvu + sum of the cost(p).
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #51
Role of the local search
We have to kinds of decisions in the MA:
tactical level: change the days for some tasks
operational level: change the trips in one given day
The MA is NOT a twophase method, it can modify a
solution at the two levels.
But, to limit running time, the local search is applied to
each day separately (operational level, VRP local search).
The crossover deals with the tactical level.
In general, this kind of separation is fruitful in MAs.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #52
References
The method was developed in fact for the periodic
capacitated arc routing problem (PCARP) but the
algorithm is easily transposed to the PVRP:
P. Lacomme, C. Prins, W. RamdaneChérif: Evolutionary
algorithms for periodic arc routing problems, EJOR,
165(2), pp. 535553, 2005.
F. Chu, N. Labadi, C. Prins: Heuristics for the periodic
capacitated arc routing problem, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 16(2), pp. 243251, 2005.
Evolutionary Algorithms for Vehicle Routing Problems – Christian Prins  Slide #53
Concluding remarks
Memetic algorithms are effective tools to solve vehicle
routing problems.
The SPLIT procedure is general and flexible… as long as
the shortest path problem is polynomial (VRP, VRPTW,
PVRP) or pseudopolynomial (HVRP)!
Software engineering point of view: the progressive
upgrade GA → MA → MAPM is (relatively) easy.
Remarks confirmed by other applications not described
here (e.g. time windows, multiobjective problems).
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
File name:

File size:

Title:

Author:

Subject:

Keywords:

Creation Date:

Modification Date:

Creator:

PDF Producer:

PDF Version:

Page Count:

Preparing document for printing…
0%
Comments 0
Log in to post a comment